I find this... unsettling

I popped over to The Spine to see if Marty Peretz had anything to say about the subject of my last post. (Not yet, it turns out, but I can't imagine he'll have nothing to say.) I don't tend to see eye to eye with Marty on much, but I find myself agreeing with him about this:

The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters.

“This is about being a true-blooded American guy and girl,” said A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff’s deputy here in Imperial County, whose life clock, he says, is set around the Explorers events he helps run. “It fits right in with the honor and bravery of the Boy Scouts.”

The training, which leaders say is not intended to be applied outside the simulated Explorer setting, can involve chasing down illegal border crossers as well as more dangerous situations that include facing down terrorists and taking out “active shooters,” like those who bring gunfire and death to college campuses. In a simulation here of a raid on a marijuana field, several Explorers were instructed on how to quiet an obstreperous lookout.

“Put him on his face and put a knee in his back,” a Border Patrol agent explained. “I guarantee that he’ll shut up.”

It seems rather a long way from Lord Baden-Powell's "Scouting for Boys," no? On the one hand, I'm all for teaching young people interested in law enforcement more about their chosen field in a setting supervised by professionals. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure about the value of training a pack of hormonal vigilantes.

Cathy Noriego, also 16, said she was attracted by the guns. The group uses compressed-air guns — known as airsoft guns, which fire tiny plastic pellets — in the training exercises, and sometimes they shoot real guns on a closed range.

“I like shooting them,” Cathy said. “I like the sound they make. It gets me excited.”

Then there's this:

The law enforcement programs are highly decentralized, and each post is run in a way that reflects the culture of its sponsoring agency and region. Most have weekly meetings in which the children work on their law-enforcement techniques in preparing for competitions. Weekends are often spent on service projects.

"Highly decentralized" seems like another way of saying "poorly supervised," and I'm not 100% sure I trust the "culture of [the] sponsoring agency and region." Some cultures are probably better off without adolescents trained in combat and fire-arm skills.

I would probably have raised an eyebrow and moved on, if not for this:

In a competition in Arizona that he did not oversee, Deputy Lowenthal said, one role-player wore traditional Arab dress. “If we’re looking at 9/11 and what a Middle Eastern terrorist would be like,” he said, “then maybe your role-player would look like that. I don’t know, would you call that politically incorrect?”

No, actually, I would call that stupid and xenophobic, and precisely the wrong kind of thing to be teaching a pack of armed children.

What with my being gay and all, I was unlikely to have much to do with the Boy Scouts of America. (I tend not to try to crash parties to which I am conspicuously not invited. See also: the GOP, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, etc.) But this? This just freaks me out.

Wow. Just... wow.

Yikes. Via Politico:

The Republicans’ only announced candidate running against Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) doesn’t look at all ready for prime time.

Arkansas state senator Kim Hendren is drawing fire for referring to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer as “that Jew” during a speech with Pulaski County Republican party activists.

And after he drew criticism over the comment, his explanation to a popular Arkansas Republican blog sounded even more macaca.

“At the meeting I was attempting to explain that unlike Sen. Schumer, I believe in traditional values, like we used to see on The Andy Griffith Show,” Hendren told the Tolbert Report.

“I made the mistake of referring to Sen. Schumer as ‘that Jew’ and I should not have put it that way as this took away from what I was trying to say."

Got that, children of Israel? Apparently, referring to your ethnicity/religion is shorthand for referring to your disbelief in traditional values in general.

I would write something else, but my irony circuits were totally fried by this. While I recover, someone please inform Marty Peretz.

Update: Hold the phone!! Hendren's veered even further into "hilariously awful apology" territory. From the AP (via TPM):

"I ought not to have referred to it at all," Hendren told the AP. "When I referred to him as Jewish, it wasn't because I don't like Jewish people."

Hendren said he made the reference as he talked about comments the senior senator made criticizing some elements of the Republican Party.

"I shouldn't have gotten into this Jewish business because it distracts from the issue," Hendren said.

No. No, in fact, Sen. Hendren, you probably shouldn't have gotten into "this Jewish business." Whoops-a-daisy!

All hail J.J. Abrams

I have never watched a full episode of either "Alias" or "Lost," so I went into the new "Star Trek" movie unfamiliar with J. J. Abrams' (the shiny new director) oeuvre. Conversely, I was a middling fan of the first run of original cast movies (some of which were easier to be a fan of than others) and of the "Next Generation" series (at least until they killed off my favorite character a couple of seasons in). I didn't watch any of the later television series with any dedication, hardly ever watched the original series in re-run, and couldn't give a detailed history of the plot points or backstory from the bits of the "Star Trek" franchise that I did watch. All in all, neither a member of the core fan base nor a detractor, but a fan of good science fiction in general.

With all of that said, I have got to hand it to Mr. Abrams. The new film, which I took in last night with the Better Half, is fantastic. He has taken a wheezing, clunking franchise that was looking like it needed to be taken behind the barn and shot, and given it a much-needed jolt. The acting is solid (particularly the new Spock), and the story kicks along nicely. I could have done without the requisite "bad boy" intro to Kirk, but once the more eye-rolling bits of his character arc are done with, the movie has few missteps. (It doesn't hurt matters that the new Kirk is, um... easy on the eyes.)

It is best not to think too hard about the plot, which verges on the silly at bits. (For certain stuffed shirt reviewers, I would remind them that this is a science fiction franchise, and thus a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required. Try to have fun, for pity's sake.) And someone needs to explain why women in Starfleet are still wearing skirts that threaten to make their nether regions part of explored space. But the movie introduces new incarnations of familiar characters with a light hand, and a respectful nod to the road we've all been down for decades. (One particularly menacing plot point actually reminded me of the first "Star Wars.")

In short, the movie did exactly what it needed to do. Well done, Mr. Abrams. I await the inevitable sequels.

One final note, giving credit where it is due. I am not what you'd call a fan of Winona Ryder, whose physical loveliness and critical acclaim have always exceeded her talent, in my estimation. However, in her teeny, tiny (and somewhat oddly-cast) role as Spock's mother, she does a creditable job.

On outing

The other day, a friend told me about the soon-to-be released documentary "Outrage" about closeted gay politicians, many of them conservative and ostensibly supportive of the anti-gay agenda. In its review of the film, NPR mentioned that it included such high-profile Republicans as Charlie Crist (Florida governor and newly-minted candidate for US Senate) and the infamous Senator Larry Craig. Because both of these politicians are married and neither is openly gay, NPR deemed it inappropriate to run the review as-is, and edited it to remove the references, thus igniting a storm of debate and controversy.

I am personally deeply uncomfortable with the practice of "outing" politicians and other public figures in the pursuit of an agenda. Yes, I find the hypocrisy of closeted politicians selling out their fellow homosexuals nauseating. I find politicians being hypocritical nauseating in general. But "outing" politicians is just a gay-specific form of the politics of personal destruction, and it is vindictive, immature and unlikely to sway disinterested parties to one's side.

Further, if the gay-rights agenda is to succeed, it should succeed on its merits. Anti-gay discrimination is wrong, and has negative consequences. But we didn't have thousands of supporters at the LD1020 hearing a few weeks ago because we exposed the anti-gay side as being full of homos. We did it because we as a movement have been coming out of the closet ourselves, and have been doing the work of showing our friends, family and coworkers that we deserve the same rights and respect as anyone else.

In response to Dan Savage (who doesn't know me from a hole in the ground), I know some of the people who are outed are vile and ugly people. I dig it. But that doesn't mean that we should debase ourselves by behaving in an ugly manner ourselves. I share Ta-Nehisi's skepticism.

A consummate disgrace

I first became aware of Knights Out when my mother told me about them. For those of you unfamiliar with them, they are an organization of West Point alumni that are openly gay, lesbian or transgender. They are opposed to the antiquated and appalling Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, by which gay and lesbian soldiers are prohibited from serving their country in the military. Lt. Daniel Choi, an Iraq vet and Arabic linguist who took the courageous step of coming out of the closet on national television, is a founding member.

Sadly but unsurprisingly, Lt. Choi has been discharged from the Army in response to doing so. He wrote, in an open letter to the President posted yesterday:

At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught us to “choose the harder right over the easier wrong” and to “never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.” The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.

[snip]

I have personally served for a decade under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.

As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.

[snip]

The Department of the Army sent a letter discharging me on April 23rd. I will not lie to you; the letter is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.

My subordinates know I’m gay. They don’t care. They are professional.

Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.

After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I “negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.” I refuse to accept this statement as true.

Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell was one of Obama's campaign promises, and it is a promise he could easily keep. I share Andrew's disgust that he has decided not to attend to this promptly, and am increasingly unimpressed by his attention (or lack thereof) to the promises he made to my community during his campaign.

Time to update your resume, Mr. Steele

Michael Steele, embattled chairman of the Republican National Committee, appears to be something of a slow learner. He clearly has not grasped that his tendency to speak without thinking may be endangering his job security.

Indeed, a few days ago Chris Cillizza of WaPo's The Fix ranked various GOP heavies by order of influence. While it's just one political analyst's opinion, it seemed about right to me. (The person ranked #2 gives me serious agita.) Poor Chairman Steele was a mere #8.

8. Michael Steele: It's day 99 of Steele's tenure as the chairman of the Republican National Committee -- and he is still dealing with the fallout from his disastrous first few weeks in the office. Steele, smartly, has limited his media appearances recently but we would expect him to re-emerge soon because, despite all of his missteps, he is still potentially one of the Republican party's best spokesmen. (Previous ranking: N/A)

Who was #1?

1. Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor claims the top spot for the third straight Line. Why? He is still the Republican that is the closest the party has to the complete package. Romney can -- and does -- speak from a position of authority on economic issues and has begun to broaden his criticism of Obama to include the sphere of foreign policy as well. On the political front, Romney is unmatched -- he has kept an active presence via his Free and Strong America PAC and continues to travel the country in support of candidates. (Previous ranking: 1)

It appears that Mr. Steele is not a reader of The Fix. From CNN (via The Plank):

In an unusual move for the person tasked with being his party's top cheerleader, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele is shining a light on the political vulnerabilities of one of the GOP's top figures and a likely frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination — former presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

[snip]

"Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life," Steele told the caller. "It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitt because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you're talking about."

Team Romney was not pleased.

"Sometimes when you shoot from the hip, you miss the target," said Romney spokesman Eric Ferhnstrom. "This is one of those times."

A Romney aide noted that the former Massachusetts governor won the Conservative Political Action Conference's annual straw poll the past three years, won 11 presidential primaries and caucuses, and earned 4.2 million votes by the time he left the race in February of last year.

The truth is that Mr. Steele's comments weren't actually wrong. That doesn't, however, mean they were smart.

If you have to ask, you can't afford it

A couple of months ago, I appeared at the capitol in support of a bill to create a "patient bill of rights" for people in Maine. (Its primary sponsor is my representative, who also happens to live down the street from me. One of the nice things about living in a small state like Maine is that you can get to know the people who make your laws.) Much of the bill pertains to insurance carriers, and to increasing transparency in what different plans will cover and what they won't. An addition provision in the bill, if I recall correctly, would mandate that patients be informed of the cost of procedures and tests before they are provided so as to allow them to make better decisions about what they can afford. (Rep. Treat's statement when she introduced the bill did not make mention of this provision, but I recall it from the press materials that were distributed at the time.)

While I was standing on the big staircase in the Hall of Flags listening to people holding forth on their experiences of being hornswoggled by the insurance industry, I mused about how ignorant I am about the costs of healthcare. Every so often I will get a call from a parent saying that some medication is not covered by their health insurance, and I am staggered by how much the price is. (In those situations, we try to find a less expensive option.) And, when it comes to the price of blood tests or x-rays, I am wholly ignorant.

All of this came back to mind when I read this article (via Washington Monthly)
about the uninsured leaving emergency rooms because they fear the costs of tests and other interventions, often deferring recommended care at significant risk.

In hindsight, maybe Jesse Ashlock shouldn’t have walked out of the New York emergency room last summer, only a couple hours after being knocked unconscious in a Brooklyn bicycle crash.

Medical crews told him he needed a blood test, chest X-rays and probably a CT scan to check for head injuries. And he certainly should have had treatment for major road rash, including raw scrapes on his face, neck and hands.

But the 31-year-old editor for a design magazine was between jobs, briefly without health insurance and afraid of being stuck with a sky-high hospital bill. The doctor on duty dismissed Ashlock’s questions about cost, telling him she was “a physician, not an accountant,” he said.

I don't know that I would have used that particular turn of phrase. (Bad bedside manner, random ER doc! No biscuit!) But the truth is, I would have been in no better a position to discuss the costs of the recommended tests than she was. Perhaps I am egregiously ignorant by comparison to other doctors, but I really don't think so. We're not taught this kind of thing in medical school (at least I wasn't), and we don't see the price when we order a lab test or x-ray. I have an innate antipathy toward ordering unnecessary tests on principle, but this has as much to do with not wasting time gleaning useless information as it does with cost.

I was also reminded of a study published recently that was authored by a good friend of mine, in which she found that the uninsured are not responsible for the shared costs of emergency care. From a Newsweek interview she gave:

NEWSWEEK: You looked at some common assumptions about why emergency rooms are so crowded. A lot of them turned out to be untrue. What were these myths, and how did people come to believe in them?

Manya Newton: First, there was a belief that the uninsured are all coming to the emergency department for non-urgent care. That's a tricky one to talk about, because there's no good definition of what "non-urgent care" is—if you have a big cut on your face, or if your baby has a fever and it's one in the morning, that is coded as "non-urgent" by doctors even though it's urgent to you. But when people talk about crowded ERs and the uninsured coming in for "non-urgent care," they're thinking about things like the sniffles, or the back pain these people have had for 11 years. And if you actually look at the uninsured, they're not coming in for sniffles or back pain, because they're the only group that bears the full cost of an ER visit. Yes, a $50 co-pay is painful, but a $5,000 bill is really painful.

So they actually come to the ER less often than people with insurance do?
Yes. They're underrepresented in ERs compared to the overall population—17 percent of people in our country are uninsured, but they account for somewhere between ten and 15 percent of visits to the ER. When they do come in, they tend to put it off until the last possible moment, until they're really sick. So it's not the uninsured who are causing crowding. It's everybody.

This is also consistent with my experience regarding who tends to over-utilize office visits. People who are self-pay (or who have high deductable plans) tend to avoid coming in if they can help it, whereas people who pay nothing for the visits are apt to come in "just in case" for minor complaints. Even though I am a proponent of universal health care, I must concede that this last phenomenon is something that will need to be dealt with. While we obviously don't want people to defer needed care, neither do we want people to be completely divorced from the cost of their care, to the point that they opt for visits or treatments they could easily have skipped.